Evidence of meeting #23 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was money.
Council Chair, United Steelworkers
Okay. You also mentioned that you would like to take this committee out to B.C.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Well, that is the subject of a motion to be dealt with. We'll see what happens with the motion, and it will go from there.
Council Chair, United Steelworkers
I would strongly recommend that you do this, because we all know that 50% of the industry is in the province of British Columbia. Also, there was some mention by Mr. Pierre Marc Johnson about the industry being very different in Quebec from what it is in B.C., for example. I would suggest that it is not that different. When you look at the interior of B.C., we're dealing with smaller wood. That'll definitely give you much more insight into what's happening out there.
So I would strongly recommend you do that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. We have, of course, had witnesses from all parts of the country.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming today. You may leave the table and we'll go directly to the motions.
Mr. Julian, would you like to present your first motion? The appropriate 48 hours' notice has been given.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I don't think the first one will be contentious at all.
Given the continued concerns expressed by many witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on International Trade on the softwood lumber agreement, and the importance of the matter to the province of British Columbia, which accounts for over half of all Canadian softwood exports, and in order that this committee obtain all the information required to make its recommendation to the House, I move that this committee conduct hearings in Vancouver upon the return of Parliament.
That would be in September. I'll speak very briefly to it.
Many companies have expressed a desire to make their views known on this agreement and, particularly smaller companies, they can't drop everything and come all the way across the continent to come to Ottawa. So I believe we need to go there, and I would hope that we have support from all four corners of this committee so that we can go to Vancouver and do our appropriate due diligence on this proposed agreement.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask Mr. Julian for a friendly amendment, that one of the hearings take place in northwestern Ontario. In that region, which is larger than France, we have been particularly affected by this, and it would be singularly important that we also have another perspective on this. So I hope he would agree with that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Could I ask a question for clarification? As chair, I feel I'd like to know this.
If industry agrees to this deal tonight and it goes ahead, then do you still want to go ahead with this motion and this travel? Of course, we will be dealing with this issue in Parliament, through legislation, if industry decides this deal should go ahead. We will then open it up to travel to witnesses and so on as the committee deals with the actual implementation legislation.
So I'd like clarification on that, as to what your wishes are should that happen.
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, until the appropriate legislation is adopted by Parliament, the deal would not come into effect. So regardless of whether or not the government feels it has industry's support, it's important to hear from British Columbia. It is the majority of the softwood industry. As I say, we've certainly been hearing from companies that can't come across the country, and I believe very strongly that we need to go to them.
I would certainly be willing to accept a friendly amendment, because I believe the more consultation the better on this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Are you making a motion? You're accepting that friendly amendment? Is there any debate on the amendment?
What is the amendment exactly, Mr. Boshcoff, again? Could you just present that?
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Chair, it's clearly that one of the hearings to this motion be held in northwestern Ontario.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The motion actually specifically says that the committee go to Vancouver.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
If you want the wording, it is “and that one of the hearings also be held in northwestern Ontario”.
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there any comment on the proposed amendment? I know I have Ms. Guergis on the motion itself, but on the amendment, anyone?
Monsieur Paquette.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Here we're talking about the amendment with respect to Thunder Bay. I do have some reservations, although I am not opposed to it per se. However, if we are going to travel to Thunder Bay, I would also like to go to Lac-Saint-Jean. The situation there is disastrous. Mr. Parent referred to it earlier.
As regards British Columbia, I agreed initially because it is a very big player and it's very far away. But I also agree with Mr. Julian that the more consultations we have with people in the field, the more beneficial it will be. That could happen while the debate is ongoing.
However, I do insist on there being one meeting in a region of Quebec that has been seriously affected by the softwood lumber crisis. If you agree, we could certainly add that to the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We are dealing with Mr. Boshcoff's proposed amendment to the motion. Are there any other speakers on Mr. Boshcoff's proposed amendment?
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I will take that as a friendly amendment to my motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
So this is a subamendment, and it looks like it is the will of the committee that we put this into the amendment. We'll have a vote on the amendment with that subamendment then included, if I see no opposition to that.
Mr. Cannan.
August 21st, 2006 / 12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Speaking against the amendment, I have real concerns from a fiscal responsibility point of view. We have a government, we have an opportunity, we've had several meetings, we invite witnesses from across the country, and we're going to send members and staff all across the country, wasting taxpayers' money. If you want to do a consultation, why not have a conference call if you want to hear from these people? I think that's more efficient, using technology or videoconferencing rather than jet-setting from one side of the country to the other. I think it's a total waste of money. We're not utilizing our technology efficiently, our resources. We'll go right across the country.
We've heard from witnesses from across the country, the different associations. We've opened it up. I don't know about you in the summertime, when you guys have been on vacation, but I've allowed myself opportunities, been in consultation with our industry.
So I think it's wasting taxpayers' money.